You say 'talking meat', I prefer 'embodied mind'. It's not exactly controversial or even original.

ou say 'talking meat', I prefer 'embodied mind'. It's not exactly controversial or even original. — unenlightened

Neither it's controversy, nor its originality were my target. Meat is uncontestedly empirical. Bound by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology... We do not assume meat can detect angels, or have a soul.

Mind (as you're using it) is not so bound. People regularly do assume it can do all sorts of things our current scientific understanding denies of mere meat.

So why bind it to a body on empirical grounds? You've not constrained it on any other empirical grounds (such as the discoveries of neuroscience). I'm just trying to understand why you've picked some empirical observations to constrain the mind, but not others.

Whence the religious language? Angels? Soul? You are arguing with your fantasy of what I have been saying. So you can carry on without my input, or pretend you have made a meaningful contribution, or whatever.

Whence the religious language? Angels? Soul? You are arguing with your fantasy of what I have been saying. — unenlightened

Fair enough. I thought the rhetoric was clear, but my apologies. What you've actually been saying is...

my mind pours out here and drips onto your screen, to be absorbed by your mind — unenlightened

Without embodiment there would indeed be nothing but a sea of mind — unenlightened

mind is like water; each of us has their separate cup of water, some muddy and some salty and so on, but the separation is temporary, and somewhere is the Great Sea of Mind whence we all came and to which we all return. — unenlightened

...are you claiming that is all empirical scientific fact? If not, then the argument remains the same. why constrain 'mind' by some empirical facts and not others?

I know what I said.

The point is that if you want 'minds', then have at them, but if they're this spooky stuff which cannot be seen, touched or otherwise amenable to empirical investigation, then they're not constrained by the world of objects (bodies, skulls, space-time). If they are that way constrained, then they're constrained by all of the empirical world, not just the biology you learned in college. — Isaac

If the distinguishing characteristic of spooky stuff is that which cannot be seen or touched, then your worldly examples of space and time would actually be spooky stuff.

You assert without explanation why a thing that is constrained by some physical forces must be constrained by all physical forces. That is, just because minds cannot be seen but brains can does not mean that minds cannot share other properties of brains, like that both exist in space and time.

And that is the bigger problem. Space and time are not properties at all but are required elements for comprehension. A dog that exists in neither space nor time does not exist, so it's hard to call it "a dog that exists." By the same token, for a mind to exist, it must exist in space and time, but because it shares the requirement with brains that it exist in space and time doesn't mean it is subject to all the same scientific descriptions.

And speaking of what is needed for comprehension speaks to yet another thing that we cannot see or touch, which is comprehension itself. Comprehension does, however, exist somewhere (between my hat and bow tie) and at some time (like right now) because if it didn't, it wouldn't exist.

If the distinguishing characteristic of spooky stuff is that which cannot be seen or touched, then your worldly examples of space and time would actually be spooky stuff. — Hanover

It was only intended to be rhetorical. The division I'm talking about (which is clear from the rest of my posts) is empirical science in general. I assume you're comfortable with the fact that we have empirical observations demonstrating space and time?

You assert without explanation why a thing that is constrained by some physical forces must be constrained by all physical forces. — Hanover

Not asserting. Asking. If a thing is constrained by some physical laws, why not all of them?

for a mind to exist, it must exist in space and time, but because it shares the requirement with brains that it exist in space and time doesn't mean it is subject to all the same scientific descriptions. — Hanover

Absolutely. I'm not making the claim that it must share all the same physical restrictions. I'm asking why people think is doesn't (or does - share some of them).

Do you not find it at all odd that the physical restrictions people tend to think the mind shares are all the easy ones they learnt in school (it's in a body, we can't read other people's, it stops when you're unconscious...) and the ones they reject are all the hard ones that only neuroscientists and cognitive scientists tend to understand?

converse with other embodied minds and interact with animal embodied minds. — unenlightened

:up:

I assume you're comfortable with the fact that we have empirical observations demonstrating space and time? — Isaac

So humor me. Demonstrate time for me. It seems I must start with the presumption that there is time or else I won't be able to understand anything you're talking about.

Not asserting. Asking. If a thing is constrained by some physical laws, why not all of them? — Isaac

Because I don't think time and space are simply physical laws, but they are part of a most fundamental conceptual framework that nothing can be understood without their presumption. Existence is not a property of something and time and space are fundamental components of existence. If you have a dog without hair, you have a hairless dog. If you have a dog outside space and outside time, it exists no where at no time, meaning you don't have dog at all.

And this is part of the bigger question about objects generally in terms of how much is the physical object and how much is imposed by our perceptions and conceptual framework.

So, the reason you can't have an existing mind that does not occur in space or time is because such a mind is by definition not in existence.

Do you not find it at all odd that the physical restrictions people tend to think the mind shares are all the easy ones they learnt in school (it's in a body, we can't read other people's, it stops when you're unconscious...) and the ones they reject are all the hard ones that only neuroscientists and cognitive scientists tend to understand? — Isaac

I don't think it odd at all. I see the things near my eyes and hear what is near my ears. Everywhere I experience a perception occurs right where my body is. And we don't read other people's minds. We hear what they tell us, watch how they gesture, and we notice all sorts of behavioral manifestations that often tell us what they might be thinking, but we don't see directly into their mind, as if to see a head is the same as to see a mind.

Demonstrate time for me. — Hanover

Way above my level of understanding. I trust the scientists on the matter. If I'm wrong then we merely need to drop 'time' from my list. It doesn't affect the argument.

Because I don't think time and space are simply physical laws, but they are part of a most fundamental conceptual framework that nothing can be understood without their presumption. Existence is not a property of something and time and space are fundamental components of existence. If you have a dog without hair, you have a hairless dog. If you have a dog outside space and outside time, it exists no where at no time, meaning you don't have dog at all.

And this is part of the bigger question about objects generally in terms of how much is the physical object and how much is imposed by our perceptions and conceptual framework.

So, the reason you can't have an existing mind that does not occur in space or time is because such a mind is by definition not in existence. — Hanover

That all makes sense.

we don't read other people's minds. — Hanover

Don't we? When I feel I know what someone else is thinking, maybe I'm reading their mind. Why not?

Don't we? When I feel I know what someone else is thinking, maybe I'm reading their mind. Why not? — Isaac

Sure, we know what people are thinking based upon their behaviors, and one such behavior is when they tell us. They may also use gestures, or they may reveal it from expressions. You may also know that someone is thinking about eating by watching them make a sandwich or perhaps they grab their car keys right at lunch time and make their way out of the house. All of that is basic behaviorism, but we don't equate the communicative behavior with the internal state.

That is, their mind experienced a desire to want to eat. That wanting to eat was a state of being and you didn't experience their state of being. Their mind remains to you a black box accessible to you only to the extent they manifest it in some sort of behavior. A person can mute or fake their behaviors, but just because I remain stoical doesn't mean I'm not suffering. The suffering is one thing, the exhibition of that suffering another.

So, when you say "mind reading" in normal discourse, people generally think of the paranormal or some sort of telepathy, as if the internal state streams from them to you. If you mean that, then no, I don't think you can mind read.

You say 'talking meat', I prefer 'embodied mind'. — unenlightened

:smirk:

Imagine a pendulum hanging from your ceiling, for example. Let's assume the pendulum oscillates in two dimensions indefinitely without ever coming to a stop. Now, imagine we could somehow shade the area of space which is occupied by the pendulum during its oscillations, giving it some kind of coloration. If the weight is dropped from a height equal to ceiling's height, the area of the oscillation will be a semicircle; anything lower than that will form a pizza-slice shape that gets smaller and smaller with decreasing dropping height. If during a pendulum's oscillation one were to block this area with a finger, for example, one would eventually interrupt the pendulum's oscillation with certainty. Now, imagine one dropped the pendulum several times, each from the same height but varying on the angle with respect to a coordinate plane drawn on the ceiling with its origin at the fixed point from which the pendulum hangs, limiting the oscillations to a two-dimensional plane, as in the previous example. If one rotated the pendulum an infinitesimal distance and shaded the area of the pendulum's oscillation for an entire rotation of the pendulum, each of the shaded areas would add to the volume of a semicircle. Again, blocking this volume would eventually interrupt the pendulum's oscillations, given that it rotates. Now, do you think the oscillations occupy a space?

If you mean that, then no, I don't think you can mind read. — Hanover

I did mean that, I was just wondering why not.

I did mean that, I was just wondering why not. — Isaac

We have five senses, and unless you reduce your communication to where it can be sensed by one of my senses, I won't be able to perceive it. Unless your behavior is visible, audible, tangible, tasteable, or smellable, how am I supposed to know it happened? If you were hungry and that emitted electrical activity from your brain into my brain, then I could read your mind, but that would require my having the sense to read electrical brain activity, which, alas, I don't.

I was told once (although I don't feel like looking it up), that they determined that pigeons were able to find their way back home due to magnetic material they found in their brain that acted as a compass. By putting a magnet on the pigeons head, they could disorient the pigeon. So, it is possible that other organisms have all sorts of unusual ways of sensing external activity, but that still comes down to following the laws of physics.

But you know this, so what is the real question here? Are you asking why we're confined to the laws of physics? That sounds like a question of why is the world like it is. I guess it just got made that way. If you are denying it actually has been made that way, then you'll need to show some evidence that you can read minds. So, let us begin. What am I thinking about?

Wrong. I was thinking about twice baked potatoes with cheese.

I do share your sentiment though that I too can read my wife's mind. She wants me to take out the garbage. I can just feel it.

Is the mind divisible?

Well: what is “mind”?

you know this, so what is the real question here? — Hanover

I've obviously not made myself very clear, my apologies.

You say we only have five senses and that we get our information from those senses. You say " If you were hungry and that emitted electrical activity from your brain into my brain, then I could read your mind, but that would require my having the sense to read electrical brain activity, which, alas, I don't."

Where did you get this information from? Presumably school biology? I don't know how far your human sciences instruction has gone, so we'll plump for the middle (college level) and you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I have a theory about the mind. My theory is that minds can communicate to other minds. You say no - that theory cannot be true because... "If you were hungry and that emitted electrical activity from your brain into my brain, then I could read your mind, but that would require my having the sense to read electrical brain activity, which, alas, I don't."

In other words, my theory, about minds, cannot be true because your college science says that brain don't work that way.

Now @unenlightened has a theory about minds, that minds might all be part of a sea of minds to which they return. Can we similarly use our college science to say - that theory can't be true, brains don't work that way?

Now the phenomenologist has a theory about minds, they say that because it seems like they experience the colour yellow, they do, in fact, experience the colour yellow. I say, that theory can't be true because my post-graduate science says brains don't work that way. The response is invariably a diatribe about how minds are not brains, how brain sciences are only speculative, how it's all about interpretation, a couple of mentions of Kuhn, and usually more than one accusation of scientism thrown in for good measure.

The person suggesting minds can do something (mind-read) which is denied by college science is a crackpot. A lunatic, not to be taken seriously. A woo-merchant.

The person suggesting minds can do something (say, gain knowledge of certain thought processes by introspection) which is denied by post-graduate level science is a philosopher, wiser and more open-minded than the overly scientistic post-grad.

I'm enquiring about the reasons for the difference of approach. What is it about college-level science about brains which gets a free pass, while post-graduate level science is rejected as not applying to minds?

unenlightened has a theory about minds, that minds might all be part of a sea of minds to which they return. Can we similarly use our college science to say - that theory can't be true, brains don't work that way? — Isaac

You don't seem to know the difference between a theory and an analogy, which i used to try and make sense of what other people have been saying. So I'd prefer that you just leave me out of your discussions altogether.

You don't seem to know the difference between a theory and an analogy, which i used to try and make sense of what other people have been saying. So I'd prefer that you just leave me out of your discussions altogether. — unenlightened

You don't seem to know the difference between being mentioned as a courtesy and being 'involved in my discussion' so I'd prefer you leave me out of your tribal border disputes altogether.

I was discussing the nature of my enquiry with @Hanover, that enquiry derived from my interpretation of something you said, and I don't think it polite to talk about other people without involving them.

If I've misinterpreted what you said, you could just say so. You know, like normal people having a civil discussion would. But hey, then you'd miss out on the chance to waive your little flag so...

If I've misinterpreted what you said, you could just say so. — Isaac

I just this moment did say so. Again. You made a false claim about me which I wanted to deny. I have denied it. And Now I ask you, again, not to talk about me, as you do "misinterpret" me rather too often. I hope that, at least, is clear and understandable.

I ask you, again, not to talk about me, as you do "misinterpret" me rather too often. I hope that, at least, is clear and understandable. — unenlightened

This is a public discussion forum. If you don't want the members of it to interpret and respond to your posts then I suggest you stop posting them.

If you want a private club wherein you can exclude those whose views you don't like, then there are plenty of means by which you can achieve that.

Using a public forum and excluding people one by one is neither civil, nor efficient.

If you don't want the members of it to interpret and respond to your posts then I suggest you stop posting them. — Isaac

I don't want YOU to MISINTERPRET and MISREPRESENT my posts. I cannot stop you, and I am not going to stop posting, but I have asked. I understand that you may not do as I wish, but I will endeavour to continue my conversations with careful readers and charitable interpreters notwithstanding your intransigence.

I don't want YOU to MISINTERPRET and MISREPRESENT my posts. — unenlightened

Then write more clearly.

I will endeavour to continue my conversations with careful readers and charitable interpreters — unenlightened

You seriously don't see the hipocrisy? You read my posts and decide the misunderstanding simply must be the result of a lack of care and charity. In the same breath as you accuse me of a lack of care and charity interpreting posts.

Can I ask where your care and charity are in interpreting our misunderstandings? Maybe it's your poor quality writing? Maybe it's our radically different worldviews and so the communication barrier is that much harder. Maybe it's a little bias on your part because you have such a passionate dislike for my field, not to mention my politics...

But no, apparently none of those, it's definitely my lack of care and charity. Your own care and charity be damned.

The person suggesting minds can do something (mind-read) which is denied by college science is a crackpot. A lunatic, not to be taken seriously. A woo-merchant. — Isaac

This just isn't accurate, as if my denial of mind reading is the result of indoctrination I've been unable to rise above as you have. I deny it because I've never seen it done nor seen a study of it being done nor been made aware of a reliable account of when it's been done.

If you're going to argue in support of the paranormal, bigfoot, or the elusive white penguin, you need evidence. Your psychological evaluation that I'm just stubbornly committed to the status quo isn't evidence of anything, even if it were true.

And it's not like there isn't extensive literature attempting to prove the paranormal that I'm unaware of. I am very much aware of it, and it's extremely unpersuasive.

I deny it because I've never seen it done nor seen a study of it being done nor been made aware of a reliable account of when it's been done. — Hanover

That's the point. You deny it because of the science you know and understand.

If you're already of the opinion that science fully constrains our theories about minds then you're not in a position to answer my enquiry.

If you're going to argue in support of the paranormal, bigfoot, or the elusive white penguin, you need evidence. Your psychological evaluation that I'm just stubbornly committed to the status quo isn't evidence of anything, even if it were true.

And it's not like there isn't extensive literature attempting to prove the paranormal that I'm unaware of. I am very much aware of it, and it's extremely unpersuasive. — Hanover

You reslise I'm not actually proposing mind-reading. It's a hypothetical. My point is that doing so would be no less unreasonable than certain propositions arising from, say, phenomenology. The only difference being that the former is countered by a level of science most people know and understand, the latter by a level of science many don't.

If this isn't a phenomena you've encountered, then all this will probably seem quite bizarre to you.

If you're already of the opinion that science fully constrains our theories about minds then you're not in a position to answer my enquiry. — Isaac

I'm not of that opinion.

In any event, I disagree that you can't debate varying epistemological theories just because you already have one you rely upon. That is, the fact that I use science to answer certain questions doesn't mean I'm closed minded to considering other epistemological methods.

So, make your argument for why you believe in mind reading and establish how your method of knowing that is consistent with how you know other things, and if it's not, why such is a special class deserving of special rules.

I'm not of that opinion.

In any event, I disagree that you can't debate varying epistemological theories just because you already have one you rely upon. That is, the fact that I use science to answer certain questions doesn't mean I'm closed minded to considering other epistemological methods. — Hanover

Then I puzzled as to why you're so confused as the nature of my enquiry. If you use some science to constrain theories about the mind, and not other science, then does it really seem odd that someone might ask why, and how you choose?

So, make your argument for why you believe in mind reading and establish how your method of knowing that is consistent with how you know other things, and if it's not, why such is a special class deserving of special rules. — Hanover

Hypothetically - I'm saying that if 'mind' is not a type of entity constrained by science (not the same as brain, or constrained by the way brains work), then when I feel like I know what my wife is thinking, I have absolutely no reason at all to think I don't.